Please unmute your microphone: Comparing the effectiveness of remote versus in-person percussion training

Abstract

Although remote music training has its limitations, the use of technology can lower barriers to its accessibility. This exploratory study compared the effects of remote and in-person percussion training on motor performance, performance quality, and students' enjoyment. The training involved the motor aspects of playing legato on percussion instruments. Twenty percussionists received the training either remotely from an instructor using videoconferencing technology or in person from the same instructor who was in the training room. Motor behavior, legato expressivity, performance quality, and participants' self-rated enjoyment were compared to determine potential advantages and disadvantages of training in the two formats. Furthermore, participants rated their interest in continuing to receive training in the same way they had experienced it, remote or in person. Regardless of whether the instructor was remote or in person, participants lifted their mallets to a greater height above the drums post-training, perhaps because there was more spatial and velocity variability in the movements of their elbows and wrists. Changes in their patterns of post-training movements were paralleled by higher ratings for expressivity of legato and performance quality. Critically, participants who received training from the remote instructor expressed greater interest in continuing training than those who received training from the instructor who was physically present, in both the short and long term. These findings may suggest that remote and in-person instruction yielded comparable changes on motor behavior, as demonstrated by the altered speed at which movements of the elbow and wrist were executed, which in turn may influence the perception of expressivity in legato playing. The results may support the use of remote training as an adjunct to physical practice to lower some barriers to music education.

Keywords: motor control; movement; music education; percussion; remote.

Figure 1.

Multi-percussion setup, marker locations (red = shoulders, yellow = elbows, green = wrists, blue = hands), and the excerpt performed by participants.

Figure 2.

Raw kinematic data used to compute the upper limb and mallet movements of one sample participant. Panel A shows the trajectory of the right mallet along the vertical Z-axis, Panel B shows the displacement of the right elbow, and Panel C shows the velocity of the right wrist.

Figure 3.

Upper limb and mallet movements as a function of time. Panels A and B: average positions of the left and right mallets, respectively. Panels C and D: spatial variability in the left and right elbows, respectively. Panels E and F: spatial variability in the left and right wrists, respectively. Panels G, H, and I: velocity variability in the left and right elbows and the right wrist, respectively. Error bars correspond to the standard error of the mean. Note: *p < .05; **p = .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 4.

Judges’ ratings of overall performance quality (left) and expressivity of legato (right). Error bars correspond to the standard error of the mean. Note: ***p < .001.